The event was large in numbers, but the 600 person crowd felt subdued as they seemed more curious to hear what this Ignatieff fellow had to say, rather than to simply cheer the Liberal Party battle cry. The room was filled with party faithful and also attracted a good mix of interested non-partisans who were likely also just as curious to hear what Ignatieff had to say. Of course, the meeting attracted a number local political names such as former Liberal MP Anne McLellan , Liberal MLAs David Swann, Laurie Blakeman, and Hugh MacDonald, and City Councillor Ben Henderson, as well as Senators Tommy Banks, Grant Mitchell, and Claudette Tardif. Alex Abboud has a good review of the question and answer session, so I won't duplicate his blog post.

While I don't believe that anyone in the building (including Ignatieff) was under the impression that his presence alone would lead to Liberal Party gains in the next election, there did seem to be a positive energy that wasn't evident during Stephane Dion's short tenure as Liberal leader. Of the Liberal activists I spoke to last night, they carried a renewed optimism, especially for the chances of winning over voters in ridings like Edmonton-Centre, Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont, and Edmonton-Strathcona.

Following Ignatieff's time on stage, I had a good conversation with local lawyer Mary MacDonald, who is seeking the Liberal nomination in Edmonton-Centre. MacDonald, who's previous electoral experience included placing a scant 58-votes behind NDP candidate Raj Pannu in 1997, was positive about her chances and was realistic about the hard work ahead of her. Over the course of the evening, a number of Liberals approached me to inquire if I was supporting former candidate Jim Wachowich, who according to Ken Chapman is no longer seeking the nod. Edmonton-Centre Liberals are expected to choose their candidate at a meeting in September 2009 (I have been told the date may be moved sooner).

From a practical politics perspective, the Liberals would be smart to put the Conservatives on the defensive in key urban ridings in western Canada. In Alberta, this would include focusing on ridings like Edmonton-Centre, Edmonton-East, Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont, Edmonton-Strathcona, Calgary-Centre, and Calgary-Centre North in order to force the Conservatives to focus funds and resources on ridings where they have become accustomed to taking voters for granted. After a dismal few elections in Alberta, the Liberals need to also focus on rebuilding their province-wide support, which fell from 22% in June 2004 to 11% in October 2008.

I may be labeled a crazy wing-nut traitor for not believing that the Liberal Party of Canada is secretly hatching a conspiracy to steal Alberta's God-given oil (or building a Death Star behind the Moon), but I actually get the feeling that Ignatieff is bothered that his party has burned so many political bridges in western Canada. That said, the largely Ontario-based Liberal Caucus hasn't done much to distill perceptions that it is biased against the politics and economics of western Canada.

My cynical views of Canadian federal politics may remain in place, and while I not yet convinced Michael Ignatieff would be a great Prime Minister for Canadians, I am convinced that he would probably be a decent and open-minded Prime Minister for Canadians. I remain open-minded and curious.

26 comments:

I guess there will be a few fights to watch in Edmonton Centre, East, and Strathcona with the NDP and Liberals both looking intensely at those seats. Have the Grits found big names for anywhere in Alberta other than Centre or are these just pipe dreams?

Conservatives messed up today in Edmonton-Strathcona. While watching the Silly Summer Parade on Whyte Ave, there was Michael Ignatieff with his merry-band of Liberals in Red. Linda Duncan and Rachel Notley came next with the NDP supporters in Orange and Green. There was even a Green Party guy on a bike. But there was not a single Conservative sign or entry to be seen in the Parade.

I know that many Liberals are upset that Cardinal is running for the NDP in Centre but a strong Liberal candidate in Strathcona... what are you thinking? If Liberals want a shot at government they need to win Conservative seats not try to take away NDP vote giving Strathcona back to the Conservatives. And, to be frank, if the Liberals ran a good campaign in Centre last time I expect that Cardinal would have had some hesitation: they didn't and he doesn't. The NDP's got a great line-up for Edmonton.

Assuming that the Fed Liberals' main goal is, as always, to return to power, they should remember that a main key to that end would be to ensure that fewer Conservatives are elected. So, strategically thinking, they should not look to closely at the seats where the NDP has a beter chance of winning, namely Strathcona and Ed East. Maybe even Ed Centre, where the introduction of Cardinal Lewis to the federal stage arguably makes this more winnable for the NDP - if not in the next election, perhaps the one after that.

Particularly in Strathcona, where there will again be a tight two-way race between Linda Duncan and the Ottawa-based Conservative, they should be very careful about what they do. They have no chance of winning there and a lot of activity could result in sending another Tory to Ottawa and decreasing the Libs ability to form government.

Wow, Raymaker. Arthur Kent? That's the most insulting thing you could come up with? I'm pretty sure he's been consigned to the mists of obscurity with 10 other PC candidates, 74 ALP Candidates, all but two ND candidates (I can't remember how many ran, or be bothered to find out), every single WAP candidate, and you. Thanks for playing.

Wikipedia isn't anonymous (it registers and displays IP address if the ugc is amended by someone without a wiki account). The topic of anonymity and anonymous bloggers is something worth discussing though. Why do the author(s) of TBP remain anonymous? Does anonymity increase or decrease the credibility of the political debate? In a free country like Canada, why would someone feel the need to blog anonymously? We don't live in Iran or China.

I first read the Jim Wachowich rumour on Ken Chapman's blog. I had a good phone interview with Jim Wachowich this morning and will have a blog post up later today.

For the record, I'm not TPB (who usually sings in as such when s/he posts, I've noticed) but there are hundreds of reasons to post anonymously.

Just off the top of my head: 1. it allows you to post an idea without having the encumbrance of a personality clouding or adding other aspects to the idea.

2. if someone would like to participate in a dialogue but is well known in a community or business that would not allow her/him to post (e.g. someone working in a government department)

3. someone who's job/life/relationship, etc. could be impacted by the expression of her/his ideas, but who still wishes to express them

I don't quite get the insistance by those who feel free enough to post their names for those of us who don't feel that freedom to do likewise. It's as though there's some sort of hierarchy - that their ideas/opinions are somehow more valid. . .

A name however can also lend credibility. Dave shouldn't link to the first person that posts something just because they are first. When Ken writes something or Dave - and a name is attached - there is a responsibility especially to the accuracy of a statement. An anonymous blogger can say whatever they want with no risk to reputation.

I agree with the above post as to why someone would blog or comment anonymously. I get it and am okay with it. I am just saying that in all messages you need to "consider the source". In TPB case no one knows who the source is or the legitimacy of the message.

Sure, one needs to "consider the source," however, in the blogosphere, I accept or discount what is written based on the arguments, not based on who writes them.

I know this blog is authored by Dave C. but I don't know him personally. My opinion of him is based on his writings. Similarly, I have no idea who TPB is, but I have an image of who who s/he is based on what s/he has posted. (now that would be a great thread - what do you thing PTB is actually like in person?)

It's fine to accept an anonymous someone's writings if it is an idea. Not if it is innuendo or rumour. In this case TPB commented on it from her/his sources. Anonymous sources in an anonymous blog. I enjoy TPB blog as well as Dave's and Ken's. They are the 3 I read everyday (and the only 3). I think TPB is able to say certain things because he/she is anonymous. Certainly a lot of the topics on that site are interesting because of it. But if I was a named blogger, responsible for my words, I would have linked to Ken too.

subscribe.

informer.

The opinions expressed on this blog represent my own and not those of my employer or any organization I may be affiliated with.In addition, my thoughts and opinions change from time to time. I consider this a necessary consequence of having an open mind. This blog is intended to provide a semi-permanent point in time snapshot and manifestation of the various ideas running around my brain, and as such any thoughts and opinions expressed within out-of-date posts may not the same, nor even similar, to those I may hold today.

twitter.

recent posts.

about the author.

Who is Dave Cournoyer? I am a writer, blogger, communicator, occasional media pundit, political watcher, & proud life-long Albertan. I studied Political Science at the University of Alberta and have served as Vice-President (External) of the U of A Students' Union, Chair of the Council of Alberta University Students, and communications coordinator for Alberta's official opposition party.